The Judgement of Brock and Trump

The reactions to the judges in the Brock Turner sexual assault case and the Trump University fraud case are forcing the contradictions of left-wing identity politics to collapse on themselves. Before the collapse is completed, however, we are going to see the logical end of identity politics come completely out in the open. Namely, that it is okay, and encouraged, to be openly racist against white men (not just passive aggressively as it has been), and for whites to start much more visibly politically agitating for white interests just like every other group does for their interests.

First, the Brock case. Brock. Looks like Bro, sounds like Jock. BroJock. Blonde. Athlete. Exactly the villain the Left needs after years of The Narrative taking numerous embarrassing, high-profile beatings from the Duke Lacrosse rape hoax a decade ago, to the “mattress girl” rape hoax, to the UVA campus rape hoax and others (1, 2, 3, 4). When this story broke you could hear all across the land exhales of relief “Phew! we finally got one, you guyz!” (What’s it like to have charcoal ash where your soul used to be?) And “Our victimology studies degrees really did train us for real work! Maybe we really can pay off this student debt!” The world at large has not bought the myth of widespread rape in America, and after years of wandering in the ideological desert, The Narrative mongers are going to milk BroJock to death: “The [victim’s] courtroom statement continued to reverberate across the country and campus this past week. Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor (and ruthless, ball-busting ice-careerqueen) who has helped create the university’s policies for dealing with sexual assault complaints, called her a new Rosa Parks.” Look, I feel bad for the girl, but Rosa Parks? You’ve gotta be shitting me.

Not a chance. She is super cereal, you guyz. “‘We are at a real watershed moment in public perception of campus sexual assaults,’ said Ms. Dauber, who is also leading the effort to have Judge Persky recalled…Ms. Dauber is friends with the victim and said she is helping her to obtain a book contract.” A fucking book. To be ghostwritten and padded with propaganda by Ms. Dauber, no doubt. Again, not to be hard on the girl, but she didn’t escape from a North Korean prison camp. She didn’t cross Antarctica on a dog sled. She got blackout drunk and the dipshit she was with fingered her and dry humped her like a little ankle biting ratdog. How long can this book possibly be?

Campus feminist shrieking to the contrary notwithstanding, a chick getting shitfaced at a frat party is leaving your car in the ‘hood with the windows down. Yes, when you get jacked the ultimate responsibility lies with the criminal. But, you made it a lot more likely and bear some responsibility, because you could easily have avoided the situation altogether. The mantra that it’s never ever ever EVER the woman’s fault in any way AT ALL for increasing the chances of rape or sexual assault strips women of moral agency and reduces them to the helpless victims the Left insists they’re not.

Not only is this case part of the Left’s war on whites, it’s part of its war on distinctions. The distinction facing obliteration here is the one between sexual assault and rape. The court documents say Brock was “found guilty by a jury of Assault with Intent to Commit Rape…” Note that he was not convicted of rape (a.k.a rape rape). In the Fact Sheet section of the case evaluation, one box is checked: digital penetration. The other unchecked choices are “penile, hands/fist, foreign object.” I have fallen pitifully behind on the ever changing definition of rape according to campus feminists and leftist activists, but my understanding is that rape means nonconsensual oral, vaginal or anal penetration with the penis. That didn’t happen in this case. The intellectually honest thing to do here is acknowledge that are distinctions between rape and sexual assault, and a gradation on the scale of sexual assault.

Tell me these are the exact same thing:

1.) Two horny kids get extremely drunk at a college frat party where it’s well known from the beginning that people are going to be looking for sex. On the way back to the guy’s room, the girl passes out. The guy, being a loser, thinks this is his only chance to get some action. He fingers her a little. With eyes red from alcohol and swimming pool chlorine, he mounts her. But being a generally good Midwestern kid with an intact family, he knows he’s getting into some bad shit and can’t quite go all the way. He gets caught by some passersby and busted by the cops and is very remorseful.

2.) A guy breaks into a home or waits behind some trees to catch an unsuspecting woman. He grabs her by the hair and pulls hard. He covers her mouth and puts a knife to her throat. He smacks her around and has his way with her. He’s been planning this for a while, and if he doesn’t get caught he might do it again. He expresses no remorse.

To hear the Left talk about it, there is no difference at all between these two scenarios. If you believe that, it makes sense to be outraged at BroJock’s 6 month sentence. If you’re sane and can grasp gradations and distinctions, you ain’t trippin’ so much.

Laura Garnette, the Chief Probation Officer who put together the case evaluation wrote, (emphasis mine)

“Furthermore…this officer weighed the fact that this 20 year old offender is now a lifetime sex registrant, his future prospects will likely be highly impacted as a result of his convictions, and he surrendered a hard earned swimming scholarship. Perhaps, just as importantly, but sometimes overlooked, are the victim’s wishes as to the potential outcome.”

What did Officer Garnette write about the victim’s wishes?

“The victim in this matter will forever by impacted by the defendant’s conduct. When the undersigned interviewed her, she provided a clear illustration of the hurt and devastation caused by the instant offenses and the ordeal of the trial. This officer was struck by the victim’s ability to objectively digest the gravity and ramifications of the defendant’s behavior and and while she was understandably traumatized by the experience, her focus and concern was treatment, rather than incarceration.

This and the approximately 50 pages of letters attesting positively to Brock’s character written to Judge Aaron Persky led him to give Brock the light sentence of 6 months in jail…plus a lifetime ban from Swimming USA, a lifetime sex offender registry, mandatory counseling and possibly a speaking tour on college campuses to address the dangers of excessive drinking and college hook up culture. In light of the facts, this seems fair to me.

So what explains the tremendous, and highly selective in the face of the statistical trends, media focus on this case? Your Honor, I humbly submit to the Bullshit Court of Public Opinion, that, like women whose periods sync up after spending a lot of time together, the media intuitively senses this is peak fertility time for The Narrative and it’s time to get on the same page. They have been wronged by reality for too long, and they are feeling scornful. That page of The Narrative says blond, white frat boys are on a rape rampage across America’s university campuses, and that they are this nation’s biggest threat. In short, another crusade for the Great White Defendant.

There’s another curious aspect to this story – that of the Swedish students who caught BroJock in the act and the underlying satisfaction in the media with this. Now I grant you, this is a little bit crazy, but here we have another layer of the pasty white onion that is white ethno-masochism across the West. Sweden has experienced a dramatic rise an explosion in rape and sexual assault since the acceleration of immigration, particularly of the Moose-leem variety, into the country. The Swedish mainstream media and most of the government do whatever they can to minimize or even cover up this phenomenon by accusing those who express opposition with charges of bigotry. Yet all right thinking people are furrowing their brows, stroking their chins and nodding their heads earnestly to the “wake up call” of this (non) epidemic of Aryan rapists on America’s college campuses. As if this dire situation requires our moral betters from one of those awesome democratic socialist paradises, and self described moral superpower, to intervene and save us from our backward, instuhtooshunalyzed rape culture. The Swedish students did the right thing, and I applaud them. There’s a good chance BroJock would’ve rape-raped the girl if it wasn’t for them. I’m not really talking about them specifically, just a little ironic plot twist worth noticing. That is to say, if only there was a wave of Swedes doing this in Sweden. And Germany for that matter.

Judge Persky, also of evil and boring sauerkraut heritage, has now been kicked off a new sexual assault case because his judgement has been questioned. Another judge, of spicy salsa y sabor descent, is getting vigorous defense after his judgement got called out by the Great White Savior Donald J. Trump.

Trump has said that Judge Gonzalo Curiel is unfit to oversee the class action fraud lawsuit against Trump University because “he’s a Mexican.” A storm of condemnation from all sides ensued, and many of us right-wing extremists are scratching our skinheads and wondering why. As Steve Deace put it,

“…how come those same progressives are now criticizing Donald Trump for referring to a native-born American as a “Mexican judge”? How come the Left is offended by Trump pointing out his “one African-American [supporter] over there” at a recent rally? After all, aren’t the Left masters at bean-counting Americans by race, ethnicity and gender? These attempts extend to every walk of life. How many times do progressives inform us how many women aren’t generals in the military? How many blacks aren’t head coaches in a major sport? How often the street cops in an urban area don’t share the same ethnicity of the neighborhoods they’re patrolling? And so on and so forth?”

To say it up front, Trump is right but he’s right in a stupid way. 28 U.S.C. §§ 455 & 144 states among other things that “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Maybe it’s the nature of TV, but there are tons of things Trump could have pointed out about Judge Curiel. For example, Curiel belongs to the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association (SDLRLA yes, I know it’s not that La Raza, but the two vatos are homies) and here is their explicitly racial mission statement: “Our purpose is to advance the cause of equality, empowerment and justice for Latino attorneys and the Latino community in San Diego County through service and advocacy. We are dedicated to promoting diversity [less whites] on both the bench and bar. We support law students with mentorship programs and scholarships.”

The racial advocacy continues:

“Specifically, the goals of SDLRLA are:

• “Increase the overall number of Latinos in the legal profession.

• “Encourage and support Latino and Latina judicial candidates to apply to the bench

• “Advocate for the promotion and retention of Latino and Latina attorneys and judicial officers.

• Improve the professional skills of our members through our certified MCLE programs.

• “Provide for the professional and social interaction among our members and other organized bar associations.

• “Improve the delivery and access of legal services to the county’s Spanish speaking community.

• “Provide role models and mentoring to Latino youth through direct interaction with students and school districts.

• “Strongly advocate positions on judicial, economic and social issues to political leaders and state and local bar associations that impact the Latino community.”

I suppose there’s nothing necessarily wrong with any of this, but you don’t get to cry “dass rayciss!” as a foul when the whole point of your organization is forwarding racial interests. Here is a small sample of recipients of scholarship funds from the SDLRLA in 2014, whom Judge Curiel had a part in choosing:

“Patricia Mejia…was born in El Salvador and immigrated to the United States when she was six years old. Ms. Mejia wants to become a criminal defense attorney to help people of color who face life‐changing circumstances, but also to show Latino youth that with perseverance and a dream injected with faith, anything is possible.” Ms. Mejia explicitly states that a defining characteristic of her career goals is to exclude whites.

“Jessica Vasquez…Her parents worked in the strawberry fields of Oxnard to provide for the family. Ms. Vasquez is the first in her family to attend college. She was described as a ‘highly intelligent, driven and compassionate future lawyer.’ Ms. Vasquez hopes to pursue a career in immigration law so that she can continue helping her community.” What community would that be, and what’s she going to help them do?

“Ricardo Elorza…immigrated to the United States when he was 11 years old. In college, he led workshops at high schools, non‐profit organizations, colleges, and parks where he talked about the DREAM ACT…Mr. Elorza wishes to someday tell any student struggling with higher education, ‘Look, a boy from Oaxaca, who did not know English and is undocumented has now graduated from law school and is an attorney.‘” (Emphasis mine.)

Judge Curiel is also affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA) which said on July 2, 2015:

“The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants.  We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macy’s and take similar actions against Donald Trump’s business interests.  We can and will make a difference.”

There is also a very strong chance that Judge Curiel himself is an anchor baby. And finally, the law firm appointed by Judge Curiel to represent the defendants in the class action lawsuit against Trump University are big Clinton donors. Given Trump’s attitude toward anchor babies and immigration, and his presidential run against Hillary Clinton, might Judge Curiel’s impartiality “reasonably be questioned”?

One more thing, why is Trump getting shit for saying what he did when Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor famously remarked “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”?

Trump ain’t bout dat life, dass fo sho. But he’s completely justified in saying Judge Curiel is unfit to oversee the case. He’s also calling identity politics on its bullshit. He didn’t cave and apologize, which is making people actually think about the disgusting double standards and contemptible contradictions of progressive race baiting. I’m not completely sold on Trump yet, but if he accomplishes just a few things, I hope one of them is making everyone unafraid to challenge The Narrative bullies without reservation.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: